Singapore has long basked in its reputation as a bastion of transparency and good governance, but I believe that beneath this glossy veneer of "zero tolerance for corruption" lies a troubling reality—a web of political protectionism and unchecked conflicts of interest that is now under the international spotlight.
I have every empathy with Lee Hsien Yang and Lee Suet Fern, because I believe that they didn't stand a chance against the Singapore political juggernaut. I'm pleased that they have been given political asylum in the United Kingdom. This suggests that the UK authorities accepted that the actions against Lee Hsien Yang were baseless and politically motivated. With everything that the Singapore government has said about Lee Hsien Yang being in the public domain, all this would have been taken into account when the UN refugee status was granted.
Forced to flee to protect his family from further persecution, Lee Kuan Yew's youngest son, Lee Hsien Yang, is now a political refugee—a situation that amounts to an international embarrassment for the People's Action Party (PAP). The man who dared to suggest that the highest echelons of Singapore’s leadership might have abused their power has been driven into exile. If this isn’t a damning indictment of the system, what is?
These latest events involving Lee Hsien Yang transcend a mere family dispute over Lee Kuan Yew's will; it unveils a harsh truth: the lack of independent oversight has allowed conflicts of interest to flourish unchecked. Instead of genuine transparency and accountability, the PAP’s regime thrives on its now-infamous mantra—'ownself check ownself.' This façade of self-policing arguably allows allies to be protected while punishing critics. Who is there to watch the watchmen? Lee Hsien Yang and his wife, Lee Suet Fern, like others before them, have discovered that if you challenge those in power, you might come up against a system designed to shield itself and bury you.
The personal attacks against Lee Hsien Yang continue unabated, including the doctoring of his photograph on the Critical Spectator Facebook page, a known meeting ground for PAP-affiliated trolls. This reinforces the obsession with not just defeating but utterly destroying any opponent who dares challenge PAP's power.
"Ironically, it was the PAP government’s obsession with destroying – rather than merely defeating – its opponents which led it to overplay its hand. Not content with having him convicted, bankrupted, and expelled from parliament, its obsession with humiliating him led it in 1987 to take away his right to practise law. But it failed to notice an obscure clause in the Legal Practitioners Act, which permitted an appeal by a debarred solicitor to the privy council in London.
It was there that the whole trumped-up series of charges against Ben unravelled. The English law lords reviewed the case and voiced a devastating condemnation of the Singapore judges who had handled it, expressing “deep disquiet that by a series of misjudgments” Ben and his co-accused had suffered a grievous injustice." ~Geoffrey Robertson (Extract from the Obituary for J B Jeyaretnam)
Let’s cut to the chase—Singapore’s establishment may be a master of marketing, but no amount of propaganda can convince those of us who have witnessed the "system" in action. After my family fell victim to a conspiracy to defraud, involving a letter from the government-linked DBS Bank and an option deed supposedly drawn up by the politically connected law firm Allen & Gledhill, and after uncovering even more damaging evidence, we were faced with a cruel ultimatum: accept a financial enticement paid through a charity account in Hong Kong to buy our silence and conceal the evidence—thereby protecting the politically connected individual and misleading investors—or wage a lonely battle against a well-connected network of powerful institutions, including DBS, Allen & Gledhill, impotent regulators, and legal bodies.
The cruelty was heightened by the fact that a PAP politician was copied in on the agreement which would have bought our silence and evidence, and the current Attorney General was the head of the law firm involved. Following a covert meeting held in London between a direct report of DBS CEO Piyush Gupta and a third-party to discuss what had taken place, DBS Legal would dictate what could not be included in a whistleblower submission, i.e. the DBS letters. What has taken place has made a mockery of Singapore’s so-called 'zero tolerance for corruption,' where 'no cover-ups are allowed' and 'no one is above the law.' The individual at the center of it all led a billion-dollar group that later collapsed, leaving hundreds of victims in its wake. Yet, no investigation followed—not into my concerns or those raised by others. As far as I know the ashes still lay under the proverbial rug! As a European victim once wrote to me, "If you fight one of them, you fight them all." I suspect Lee Hsien Yang has come to realize this truth just as I have over the past ten years.
If Lee Hsien Yang—a man of privilege and pedigree—must flee to escape persecution after challenging the wrong people in Singapore, what hope is there for the rest of us who dare to question those in power? This is not just about one political family or one financial scandal. It’s about the integrity of the Singapore establishment. Any illusions I held about the integrity of the Singapore legal system were shattered a long time ago.
It’s time to question whether Singapore’s façade of good governance and its so-called 'clean' system are merely a carefully crafted veneer—maintained through enticements, persecution, and a self-serving 'ownself check ownself' approach that keeps skeletons firmly hidden from view. If individuals can be enticed to bury allegations of fraud and protect the establishment’s friends, what’s stopping others from providing false evidence to persecute its foes? That should be of serious concern to anyone who values justice. As we saw events unfold in the Parti Liyani case, justice delayed is justice denied.
Others have reached out to me, sharing how their reports—like mine—were dismissed with the all-too-familiar refrain of "insufficient evidence." I know there was ample evidence in my case, so what about all the others? How much wrongdoing could have been swept under the rug, concealed behind this veneer of respectability that seeks to convince the international community that Singapore is the model to emulate?
The warning signs have been clear for years. The system, cloaked in a façade of good governance, continues to silence its critics one by one. Today, it’s Lee Hsien Yang. Tomorrow, it might be your loved one. With the world watching, will the UK's recognition of Lee Hsien Yang’s political persecution serve as a catalyst for more Singaporeans and international investors to finally declare, 'enough is enough'?
After Asia Sentinel raised just a few of my concerns and I followed up on the matter, the Prime Minister's Office requested that the Singapore Police Force, which had assessed my evidence for 18 months only to incredulously conclude there was insufficient evidence to investigate, review their assessment. Following this request, the police liaised with the Attorney General’s Chambers—led by an Attorney General with clear conflicts of interest—and, unsurprisingly, the finding remained: case closed.
Unlike others, I have nothing to hide and am more than willing for everything surrounding this cover-up to be made public by the authorities.
Comments